Some comments on WGIG nominees

[Marc Schneiders]

Milton, thanks for these succinct comments. I am in agreement with you
overall. I am wondering though, what sort of people would qualify.
Obviously pure volunteers (I mean people not paid to do the WSIS work
as part of their job, be it academics, employees of civil society orgs
or of non-commercial companies like APNIC) will be hard to find.

Still, I think your breakdown of people and purposes makes a lot of
sense.

Marc

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004, at 17:15 [=GMT-0400], Milton Mueller wrote:

> My comments on three of the names put forward so far:
> Wilson, Drake, Wong
>
> >>> Adam Peake <ajp at GLOCOM.AC.JP> 8/21/2004 1:31:36 AM >>>
> >And I have said nothing about Paul Wilson,
> >(who I think would be a very strong WGIG member),
>
> Adam, as you know I put Wilson's name on our list. But I did so
> knowing that you supported him and that Jeanette Hoffman,
> the other IGC co-chair, believes very strongly in him.
>
> The only possible objection to Paul is that APNIC is an industry
> association. One might then think that he is not "civil society"
> in the same sense as we are, and that the private sector
> (business) interests should be responsible for getting him on if
> he has support from that sector. However, the counterargument
> is that ISPs are core to Internet governance, the technical
> expertise he holds is critical, and his policy positions are not bad.
> If industry and civil society can agree on a name, it is better, no?
>
> However, I have this concern: two other key people of the Regional
> Internet Address registries have now been nominated. (Pindar
> Wong was with APNIC, and was elected to the ICANN Board
> by the RIRs) and Raul Echeberria, CEO of LACNIC. Whatever the merits
> of these three men, I believe it would be a bit strange for a
> noncommercial/
> civil society process to advance all three of those names. I will
> give my own comments on Pindar Wong below.
>
> >Bill Drake (who has made v. important contributions to WSIS civil
> >society on ICT governance, understands the ICT for development
> >aspects
>
> I know Bill well. He is part of my world, an academic political
> scientist
> with a good knowledge of global governance processes. His strength
> is in traditional telecom institutions like ITU and trade in telecomm
> services
> in the WTO. "ICT for development" has never been one of his research
> areas and he doesn't spend time in developing countries, so don't
> oversell
> him there Adam. He is smart and creative and would be very vocal. He is
>
> just as undiplomatic as Karl Auerbach, he is reknowned for his
> directness.
> (Might be interesting for Adam to explain the double standard here.)
>
> I have two problems with Bill. One is that he has had real trouble
> grasping
> and accepting the importance of ICANN as a governance model,
> and the importance of the ICANN issue in the creation of the WGIG.
> He has never attended an ICANN meeting, and his technical knowledge
> of Internet is weak. As late as December 2003 he was insisting that
> the WSIS Internet Governance Caucus rename itself the "Global ICT
> Governance" caucus because Internet governance was so "narrow and
> unimportant."
>
> The other is that I think the other two No. American nominees are
> preferable. I think that Susan Crawford has given much more thought
> to the broad range of IG issues, and that Pam Samuelson
> has a much better grasp of the central IPR issues, and so would prefer
>
> the other names for North America over him. But I would not consider
> him
> unacceptable.
>
> Re: Pindar Wong - I am surprised to see him nominated by Norbert.
> Pindar is a very smart man. He pioneered the ISP industry in Hong
> Kong (and cleverly sold off the business just before the rush
> of competition made it unprofitable). He was an ICANN Board
> member appointed by the ASO. He was a key figure in the formation
> of the Asia Internet Association, an ISP trade association. Pindar is
> the consummate insider. He fulfills all the criteria that Adam thinks
> Karl
> Auerbach doesn't have: he won't rock the boat, he will be diplomatic,
> he will make insider deals. The problem is, there is no real nexus with
>
> the values and principles of this constituency. I've known him and
> watched
> him for years and I don't know what he believes on policy issues; he
> seems
> to be a pure pragmatist. He is a businessman. He has personal
> integrity. But
> I do not see how he can be expected to represent or give voice to the
> values
> and policies favored by civil society in a global process. And I don't
> think
> he would be answerable to civil society; I think his identity as a
> businessman
> and insider would override other considerations, although I do think he
> would
> make an effort to communicate with us.
>
> --MM
>